I always enjoy a read that involves review and opinion on the NSX - be it about the Gen1 (not so prevalent these days) or the numerous Gen2 articles. Came across this one from a couple of days ago and after reading through it felt it had some errors and left a bit on the table when it came to importance of the car in it's day and age. I don't know if it's because the author simply didn't know due to negligence, limited research, or if they didn't care. Anyway, these are my thoughts on the article, and I'm sure there are others that will chime in.
Link to article on Gen1
http://driving.ca/acura/nsx/auto-news/news/acuras-2005-nsx-doesnt-feel-like-its-aged-a-day
Link to article on Gen2 that has Gen1 references
http://driving.ca/acura/nsx/reviews/road-test/first-drive-2017-acura-nsx
My thoughts
a) The NSX 3.0L engine that powered the Gen 1 NSX in 1991 is a QUAD overhead cam engine and the FIRST mass produced engine to employ a variable timing valve train (VTEC). It's was also the only 90deg 'V' configured for a production car. All of these items something only seen in stand along race cars. (where in the heck would this author believe it was only a single cam engine?)
b) The 290hp way out in front other production values of it's day. In the lightweight aluminum NSX chassis it equated to 10lbs/hp which is better than the majority of cars ever manufactured, and aside from the past 6-8yrs, better than a good number of exotic 'supercars' also. I know there are numerous owners on Prime that have added forced induction systems that can push the tiny high revving 3.0/3.2L into power levels that provide over 200hp/L which quickly half's the performance numbers to 5lbs/hp. (measly as the author puts it is in the eye of the beholder obviously)
c) The wheels were nothing short of engineering marvels. They had directional belts that match the aggressive factory tuned alignment and required purchase of individual tires for each corner of the car. Something that has NEVER been successfully undertaken by any other car manufacturer. Yes, there are few on this forum that would argue that the rims looked good - they looked downright awful, but they were forged and lighter than any style of rim you can find on any current supercar even to this day. Besides, with a curb weight of 2900lbs, a 'street car' doesn't need massively wide tires to get around a track to still be quick and enjoyable which is why a number of owners that track their rides do so on a set of OEM 16/17 rims. Tires that require massive rims and that lead to increased in unsprung weight, rolling resistance, etc. For owners that aren't particular about having their car on a diet and shaving pounds, 285's can be mounted on the rear which on such a small car is almost overkill - but sure looks good.....
Link to article on Gen1
http://driving.ca/acura/nsx/auto-news/news/acuras-2005-nsx-doesnt-feel-like-its-aged-a-day
Link to article on Gen2 that has Gen1 references
http://driving.ca/acura/nsx/reviews/road-test/first-drive-2017-acura-nsx
My thoughts
a) The NSX 3.0L engine that powered the Gen 1 NSX in 1991 is a QUAD overhead cam engine and the FIRST mass produced engine to employ a variable timing valve train (VTEC). It's was also the only 90deg 'V' configured for a production car. All of these items something only seen in stand along race cars. (where in the heck would this author believe it was only a single cam engine?)
b) The 290hp way out in front other production values of it's day. In the lightweight aluminum NSX chassis it equated to 10lbs/hp which is better than the majority of cars ever manufactured, and aside from the past 6-8yrs, better than a good number of exotic 'supercars' also. I know there are numerous owners on Prime that have added forced induction systems that can push the tiny high revving 3.0/3.2L into power levels that provide over 200hp/L which quickly half's the performance numbers to 5lbs/hp. (measly as the author puts it is in the eye of the beholder obviously)
c) The wheels were nothing short of engineering marvels. They had directional belts that match the aggressive factory tuned alignment and required purchase of individual tires for each corner of the car. Something that has NEVER been successfully undertaken by any other car manufacturer. Yes, there are few on this forum that would argue that the rims looked good - they looked downright awful, but they were forged and lighter than any style of rim you can find on any current supercar even to this day. Besides, with a curb weight of 2900lbs, a 'street car' doesn't need massively wide tires to get around a track to still be quick and enjoyable which is why a number of owners that track their rides do so on a set of OEM 16/17 rims. Tires that require massive rims and that lead to increased in unsprung weight, rolling resistance, etc. For owners that aren't particular about having their car on a diet and shaving pounds, 285's can be mounted on the rear which on such a small car is almost overkill - but sure looks good.....
Last edited:
